Thursday, March 31, 2011

In the death camps of 1930's Nazi Germany, one of the cruelest forms of execution preferred by Nazi torturers, was the "Starvation Bunkers". Prisoners feared this form of execution more than hanging or facing a firing squad, as it dealt a much slower and far more torturous form of death. Prisoners knew that death in the starvation bunkers could take up to two weeks, while they slowly suffered the excruciating and maddening effects of starvation and dehydration.

Fast forward to six years ago here in the United States, on March 30th, 2005, when Terri Schiavo died from court-ordered dehydration and starvation. Many, including the major media claimed, that death by dehydration and starvation is painless. Here are just a few quotes from our friends for Life, the New York Times: "They generally slip into a peaceful coma. It's very quiet, it's very dignified, it's very gentle." The victims of the "Starvation Bunkers" in the Nazi death camps would vehemently disagree. They often went mad, screaming and cursing and drinking their own urine due to the excruciating effects caused by dying of thirst. And, if starvation is so peaceful and dignified, why are all the tearjerkers constantly concerned about the plight of famine victims? And in fact, if Terri Schiavo was not experiencing pain during her ordeal, why do court records reveal she received morphine?

The actual facts regarding her medical condition and it's causes are largely misunderstood. Terri was not terminally ill, nor was she brain-dead. She did not die a natural death from an illness or a disease. She was in fact, a young woman who suffered brain damage, the extent of which still remains unknown. Because of her disability, she was denied ordinary, necessary and available care - mainly her food and hydration. It's not exactly clear what caused Terri to collapse on February 25,1990. What is clear, is that the oxygen supply to her brain was cut off, leaving her permanentlybrain damaged. We know the denial of food and hydration is a biologically final act; no one lives without them. The Nazi's certainly knew this. Therefore, the decision to remove her food and hydration and allow her to die, was in fact, euthanasia. An interesting fact is that Michael Schiavo,Terri's husband, received $700,000 for her ongoing medical care, from a malpractice suit, filed by Michael after Terri's collapse. This same jury also awarded Michael $300,000 for loss of companionship. In fact, Michael never used the $700,000 for Terri's medical care; instead he spent it on the legal fees to petition the court to remove her life support. He further refused antibiotics for any infection she might develop, or for any rehabilitation or physical therapy.Interesting enough,Terri was not on a ventilator or any other high-tech life support system. Food and water were considered her only life support. Terri's parents were vehemently opposed to Michael and the court's decision to remove her food and hydration. In fact, they offered to assume full responsibility for their daughter. The battle over her care wound it's way through the court systems, and on February 11, 2000, a Judge Greer ruled, that in spite of no written advance directive wishing to forgo life support, her husband Michael could order all food and fluids withheld from Terri. Her parents appealed and a long legal case ensued.

The outcome, on March 8, 2005, in spite of every legal effort, the court ordered removal of her feeding tube and a ban on oral nutrition and hydration. Her hospital room became a starvation bunker. Thirteen days later Terri died. It was a slow cruel death. In a culture of death, law is divorced from humanity, and we are all victimized in the process.

1976 Pro-life Democratic Presidential Candidate passes on...

This past Sunday, longtime pro-life activist Ellen McCormack passed away. Since the pro-life movement often devotes little attention to its own history, her name may be unfamiliar to many young pro-lifers.

However, pro-lifers of a slightly older generation will remember her as one of the most famous pro-life activists of the 1970s. McCormack was a wife, mother, homemaker, and a pro-life activist. She got her start in politics in New York, which was a hotbed of pro-life activism when it became among the first states to legalize abortion in 1970.

McCormack is most well known for running for the Democratic party’s nomination for president in 1976 on a pro-life platform. Her story is chronicled in Professor Jane Gilroy’s recent book A Shared Vision.

Throughout her campaign, McCormack had little money, name recognition, or media coverage. However, she still received more votes than better known, better funded Democratic presidential candidates in a number of primaries and caucuses.

McCormack became the first female presidential candidate to qualify for federal matching funds and her campaign commercials which focused on pro-life issues reached tens of millions of voters. She received three delegates and received a nominating speech and a seconding speech at the Democratic National Convention that summer. Her campaign educated many about abortion and demonstrated that there was a sizeable contingent of Democrats who were willing to support a single-issue pro-life candidate.

Pro-life pioneers like Ellen McCormack deserve credit for the gains the pro-life movement has made in recent years. In its early years, the pro-life movement was very short on resources and received precious little attention from the mainstream media. As such, it was up to articulate volunteers and single-issue candidates like EllenMcCormack to keep voters informed.

Furthermore, McCormack’s campaigns raised the salience of sanctity of life issues and gave countless campaign workers valuable experience. McCormack went on to run for lieutenant governor of New York in 1978 and for president as a single-issue pro-life candidate in 1980. Her steadfast devotion to the pro-life cause will be missed. RIP.

It's hard to imagine today that anyone might run for the Democratic nomination for President on a pro-life platform. I can only imagine the abuse they'd receive. Today, the Democrats are at least as wedded to abortion as they once were to slavery.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

A few hundred years ago, if you wanted a miracle cure for ailed you, or just a really nifty new hair tonic, you might buy something made from ground up ancient Egyptian mummies. Seriously:

From the 1100s until opinions changed in the 1700s, powdered or chopped up pieces of a mummy were considered a cure for many different health problems, including diseases, poisoning, open wounds, and even broken bones. Mixed with other ingredients or used straight, mummy medicine became a popular drug in the West. King Francis I of France even took powdered mummy with rhubarb daily.

When Egyptian mummies became hard to acquire, a new market for the dearly departed opened up. Merchants substituted the corpses of slaves and others, “embalming” the bodies themselves and marketing them as genuine mummies.

"Mummy Brown" or “Egyptian Brown” was a paint composed of powdered mummy. Most often used in watercolor and oil painting during the 1500s and 1600s, artists enjoyed its pleasing color and texture although it was prone to cracking. Mummy Brown abruptly fell out of use in the 1800s after its gruesome composition became known.

In Britain during the 1830s and 1840s, mummy “unwrapping” parties were popular. Tourists traveling to Egypt would bring back a mummy and invite friends over to witness the unwrapping of the mummy, followed by refreshments. Victorians also found it interesting to keep the hand or foot of a mummy as a display piece ... accounts include mummies used as firewood by travelers and the export of mummified cats to Europe as fertilizer in the 1800s.

A pro-life group that monitors the use of cells from babies victimized by abortions is today highlighting a biotech company, Senomyx, which it says produces artificial flavor enhancers using aborted fetal cell lines to test their products.

The group Children of God for Life is calling for a public boycott of major food companies partnering with Senomyx.

Debi Vinnedge, the director of the pro-life organization, tells LifeNews.com today that, in 2010, her group wrote to Senomyx CEO Kent Snyder and pointed out that moral options for testing their food additives could and should be used. But when Senomyx ignored her letter, the group wrote to the companies Senomyx listed on their website as “collaborators” warning them of public backlash and threatened boycott. They included food giants PepsiCo, Kraft Foods, Campbell Soup, Solae and Nestlé. (See update below.)

“The company’s key flavor programs focus on the discovery and development of savory, sweet and salt flavor ingredients that are intended to allow for the reduction of MSG, sugar and salt in food and beverage products,” the Senomyx web site says. “Using isolated human taste receptors, we created proprietary taste receptor-based assay systems that provide a biochemical or electronic readout when a flavor ingredient interacts with the receptor.”

... “What they don’t tell the public is that they are using HEK 293 – human embryonic kidney cells taken from an electively aborted baby to produce those receptors,” she said. “They could have easily chosen animal, insect, or other morally obtained human cells expressing the G protein for taste receptors.”

Vinnedge says she has contacted the food companies working with Senomyx, but said it took three letters before one company, Nestlé, finally admitted its relationship with Senomyx and company officials claimed the line of cells from abortions was “well established in scientific research”.

Both PepsiCo and Campbell Soup also responded.

PepsiCo wrote: “We hope you are reassured to learn that our collaboration with Senomyx is strictly limited to creating lower-calorie, great-tasting beverages for consumers. This will help us achieve our commitment to reduce added sugar per serving by 25% in key brands in key markets over the next decade and ultimately help people live healthier lives.”

Campbell Soup officials told the pro-life group: “Every effort is made to use the finest ingredients and develop the greatest selection of products, all at a great value. With this in mind, it must be said that the trust we have cultivated and developed over the years with our consumers is not worth compromising to cut costs or increase profit margins.”

...

UPDATE: Within hours of its press statement to LifeNews.com, the pro-life group received notice from Campbell Soup that the company has severed its ties with Senomyx. Juli Mandel Sloves, Senior Manager of Nutrition & Wellness Communications at Campbell Soup Company, told Vinnedge, “We are no longer in partnership with Senomyx. This fact was discussed during the Senomyx conference call with its investors earlier this month.”

Don't mistake: now that abortion on demand is legal through all nine months of pregnancy, the goal is to involve you in abortion, directly or indirectly, with or with your knowledge or assent, and as deeply as possible.

The 40 Days for Life Campaign is doing everything right. Yet, one of their coordinators received, what she describes, as "a very friendly courtesy call from the FBI." The agent reported that the Whole Woman's Health abortion center in Austin Texas, had made several complaints about peaceful citizens, praying in front of their abortion clinic. What an outrage! Imagine people praying in front of an abortion clinic.

The abortion center's complaint is, according to a 40 Day for Life coordinator, "just the type of confirmation that we always pray for. We now know how much of an impact we are having on their clients, their abortion numbers and on their workers." The coordinator goes on, "Thank God for the work He is doing inside of that abortion clinic. Our presence is working."

The reason why the FBI called, is because the pro-life group, Operation Rescue conducted a wide-ranging investigation and found that numerous abortion centers, staff and abortion practitioners were evading Texas laws. Some of these infractions include, illegal dumping of patient's records (this is a federal offense against the HIPPA Law), covering up possible sexual abuse of minors, and aiding minors to avoid the Texas parental involvement law. The worst offender, believe it or not, was the Whole Woman's Health center, which operates five abortion facilities in Texas.

OJ Simpson - remember him - has nothing on Miami, Florida, where two felony charges were recently dropped against an unlicensed abortion clinic worker, Belkis Gonzalez. Gonzalez was accused of taking an infant, who was born alive from an incomplete abortion, stuffing it in a bag, and taking it up to the roof of the clinic, where it was cruelly left to slowly die. Unfortunately, prosecutors were left without any kind of a case, when the doctors who were scheduled to testify against Gonzalez, changed their opinions on the matter.

The unidentified owner of the famous black glove, in the OJ Simpson murder trial, is trivial evidence, compared to a baby in a bag, left to die of exposure on a rooftop. And in this case, the defendant herself, was the one accused of evidence tampering - that evidence being the poor helpless infant in a bag. The last moments on this earth, of this tiny human, ripped from the security of it's mother's womb and thrown into a bag, we can only imagine with tears in our eyes. Though it seems there were no tears in the eyes of Belkis Gonzalez, as she cut the umbilical cord of the live girl infant, shoved her into a bio-hazard bag, then tossed her little helpless body onto the roof of the clinic, in order to hide the evidence from authorities. A bit more tricky than disposing of a bloody glove, wouldn't ya think?

Gonzalez was also charged with the unlicensed practice of medicine, along with the evidence tampering charge. Ed Griffith, spokesman for the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office, said, "Everyone wants to use common sense. There was no common sense involved in this case." Common sense? What common sense is there here to begin with? This is the whole problem with the abortion issue! How do you make sense out of any of it? Had the abortion gone as planned, the baby would have been delivered DOA, and none of this would have been an issue. The criteria for defining a human being, from the pro-choice perspective, is the most nonsensical of all. A human being is an object of choice one moment - a murder victim the next. Based on what? What changes the status of a person's identity, from one moment to the next? Is breathing outside the womb the only criteria that defines a human being?

This case evoked outrage from the pro-life community, as well as, the Florida legislature. Senior Policy Advisor for Operation Rescue, Cheryll Sullenger stated, "We spoke with both the Hialeah police and the prosecutor's office in this case numerous times. The police indicated to us that they wanted Gonzalez charged with a homicide, but prosecutors dragged their feet every inch of the way." She went on to say, "When abortion is involved, it can be very difficult to get justice because of a political climate that seeks to protect abortionists at any cost. That is beginning to change, but this case illustrates that there is still a long way to go."

The mother named her baby girl Shanice, and expressing remorse for attempting to abort her child, has now filed a civil suit against those responsible. Those responsible? The question here is, was this baby killed by putting it in a bag on a roof, or was it killed by abortion?

From one of my favorite blogs, Shoved to Them relates a story about her unborn baby's first encounter with a big brother:

I had my monthly OB appointment yesterday with my midwife. This time, I took the 4 youngest Little Kids with me. The eldest was off doing some kind of Irish dance performance or something with her two best friends. She missed seeing #6. We didn't. Lucky us!

#5 freaked out a bit in the exam room. He doesn't like "new", and was on the verge of tears the entire time. I tried to explain that she was the nice lady who delivered him, and that it would be okay. He's 23 months old and didn't seem to care. I finally sat him up on the exam table next to me and he calmed down a bit...

Then came the midwife with the ultrasound machine. (Hooray!) The children all piled around me to get their first peek at our littlest one.

It was clearly sleeping. Nestled in peacefully and curled up in the fetal position. Then the machine beeped and #5 screamed.

#6 threw its arms wide in the classic infant startle. Then, the little hands flew instinctively up to cover the ears from a big brother's offensive racket.

The little face turned towards the direction of the crying brother, and it's mouth opened slightly. Then, its chin began to quiver. Clearly, obviously crying.

We all laughed at the sweet humanity of the moment which only made my two babies cry harder. 17 weeks into pregnancy. Barely 4 months. Hearing. Responding. Displaying emotion. Reacting logically. A blob of tissue? Product of conception? No. Thinking, feeling, emoting. Human.

Friday, March 25, 2011

In 2006, a new vaccine was marketed to supposedly prevent cervical cancer, caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV). In fact the rest of the story is that, Gardasil treats only 2 strains of the more than 100 strains of HPV, and only 2 strains of genital warts. Ponder another fact - according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), HPV is the most common sexually transmitted disease (STD) in America. Another fact for pondering, is that the immune system of many women is naturally strong enough to clean up the HPV, without any medicine.

Question - Why is a vaccine needed? HPV is an STD, formally known as a venereal disease, a name derived from Venus, the pagan goddess of sexual promiscuity. Sexual behavior, as we know from watching any TV program, has changed over the past 40 years; so too, the number of STDs, which have increased and mutated.

Oh my! Rather than addressing the real problem, which is sexual promiscuity, we have a vaccine to immunize you, rather than moralize you. Add to that, the vaccine doesn't work on all the strains anyway. Gardasil was fast-tracked without adequate testing. We now know, that there have been many complications and even deaths from the vaccine. Still, it was highly marketed as a miracle drug, probably the greatest discovery since penicillin.

Now, four years later, after all the hoopla, the party is over, and Gardasil is a dud ... a marketplace dud to be sure. In Merck's 2nd quarter of 2010, the company reported an 18% year- over-year drop in sales, and it's shares plummeted nearly 3%. Why? - you may ask. To begin with; it seems Gardasil has a design flaw. In order to be completely immunized, the vaccine needs to be delivered in a series of 3 injections over 6 months. Which doesn't fit the American way of life, get it done in a single visit, like a drive-through; resulting in numerous girls and women not following through with the vaccine series, and becoming fully immunized. The next reason for it's market failure, is because many parents are not comfortable vaccinating their young children against a virus they can only get if they are having sex. Also, Merck has been unable to defend itself against the bad press, when the complications to the vaccine became public information.

Merck however, will never give up on the $. They're still pushing the drug into other markets. China may have given us poisoned milk products, pet food & toys for our kids, but we're returning the favor by giving them Gardasil. This ought to make every man-hating feminist happy. Gardasil was also approved for male use.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

In honor of The Day of the Unborn Child tomorrow (which Catholics celebrate as the Feast of the Anunciation), members of the Knights of Columbus Curé of Ars Council #14819, at St. Peter Church in Volo, IL, erected 53 crosses, each to represent one million innocents lost to legal abortion since the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. The crosses will remain until Sunday.

The exclusive tea party with the Mad Hatter and the Cheshire Cat, in Alice in Wonderland has nothing on the Obama Health Care Bill's birthday party. This bill celebrated it's first birthday yesterday, March 23rd - I think only Dems were at the party.

Health Care comprises 1/6 of our nation's economy. The government takeover has broad economic implications, as well as moral ramifications. There is no doubt that the health care industry had some problems that needed to be addressed; however, what it didn't need was a government takeover. Have you ever known the government to run a system efficiently, cost effectively and in a jurisprudential manner?

Remember last year, when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, was winding it's ways through the hallowed halls of Congress? Nancy Pelosi was heard to say, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it." Most of our august Dems voted Yes on a bill they'd never read, much less considered the will of their constituents. Benedict Arnold appeared at the last moment, and the bill passed.

For the first time in US history, a person not purchasing health care insurance, will be deemed as breaking the law, and be subject to a fine - or could we call it a government tax?

Once passed - and payouts made - to all the wonderful Dems - who totally ignored the will of the people - while getting a payback - we the people find out that the administration granted over a thousand waivers. These waivers protect business, labor unions and other organizations that are the sugar tit, and exempted from some of the provisions that ordinary people must comply with.

Last, but not least, the moral ramifications of this bill are too numerous to elaborate on; other than to say, there is enough evidence to know that taxpayer funding of abortion is there, as well as rationing. Senator Johnson (R WI) sums it up well, "Obamacare will make our health care system's problems much worse. Instead of increasing consumer choice, it narrows it. Instead of encouraging innovation, it stifles creativity. Instead of expanding access to care, it will ration it. And instead of allowing competition to help bring down costs, it increases spending and puts our health care system on a path to ruin.

Lake County Right to Life, Inc. strongly opposes Illinois SB 1619, the Personal Responsibility Education Act.This bill purports to promote comprehensive, medically accurate and effective sex education, but does none of these things, instead representing a worldview battle.Its apparent main goal is to remove the long-standing policy of the State of Illinois that “abstinence until marriage” is to be the focus of sex education programs, supporting abstinence as the expected norm.

While the sponsor, State Sen. Heather Stearns (D-Chicago) says that the intent is to include abstinence programs, the bill’s language belies this.The law has a clear political and social engineering agenda—it promotes a curriculum designed to indoctrinate children by presenting relativism and sexual immorality as the norm.It presents disputed information as fact and even distorts the positions and values of religious congregations.

The promoted curriculum teaches children ages 5-8 about homosexuality, same sex marriage, masturbation and intercourse.It teaches children ages 9-12 about a full panoply of gender identities, presents abortion as just another option and depicts opposition to immoral sexual behavior as discrimination.Further, under SB1619, schools will not have to notify parents in advance about controversial curriculum content.

Lake County Right to Life urges Illinois citizens to contact their state senators and representatives in opposition to this bill.

About Lake County Right to Life

Established in 1973 and headquartered in Grayslake, Lake County Right to Life is an educational and advocacy organization for the protection of innocent human life.The organization works in Lake County to promote the vision of a society in which all human life is respected, protected and secure.

For more information, please call the Lake County Right to Life office at (847)223-7022.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

A new ethics dilemma in the science world has arisen, with scientists creating animals using human parts, making the animals part human? Although pig valves have been used in surgery for a long time, at the University of Nevada in Reno, there are a flock of 50 sheep; many of them possessing partially human livers, hearts, brains and other organs.

Those of you who know your Greek mythology, should remember the Centaurs; creatures with the head, chest and arms of a man, and the body of a horse. These man-horse beasts fed on meat and were given to riotous revelries; thus coming to symbolize the dark, unruly forces of nature.

So ... today's dark and unruly scientists have created pigs with human blood, fused rabbit eggs with human DNA and injected human stem-cells to make paralyzed mice walk. Even more unbelievable, is that this type of research (which used to only be conducted in Nazi Germany) falls within the new ethics guidelines of the influential National Academies - issued this past week for stem-cell research.

Remember the flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz? The Academies recommends a prohibition on mixing human stem-cells with embryos from monkeys. However, some scientists are pushing into larger animals and primates.

Even though mice and other animals may get some human brain stem-cell injections, we have been reassured that if the mice's behavior mimics human behavior, they will kill the mice. Oh no! Calling John Steinback, author of Mice and Men.

When President Bill Clinton told us that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare", we knew he was lying about doing the slightest thing to make abortion "rare." But now, as it turns out, pro-aborts aren't too interested in abortions being "safe," either.

In Illinois today, veterinary clinics are better-regulated than abortion clinics. But as you may have already heard (especially if you subscribe to Lake County Right to Life emails) the Illinois General Assembly is considering a bill to change that. Co-sponsored by both pro-life and pro-abortion members, the bill (as reported by Illinois Review):

...amends the Illinois Ambulatory Surgical Center Act. Currently Illinois law exempts abortion clinics from the standards imposed on all other outpatient surgical centers in Illinois...

Last week, after hearing testimony from Thomas More Society's Peter Breen, the House Agriculture Committee passed that bill on a bipartisan 13-0 vote. With this amendment, abortion facilities would be required to meet the same health and safety licensing standards as any other outpatient surgical center, from appropriate hallway width for gurney transport to typical sanitation standards in operating rooms. In light of the "House of Horrors" clinic of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell, regulations like these are long overdue in Illinois.

The pro-abort side loves to tell us that they are the ones who are "pro-woman", that they oppose a return to their fictitious "back-alleys".

This bill has passed out of committee and is now on the house floor. We'll keep you posted on its progress, but this would be a good time to contact your state representative and ask his or her position on the Senger Amendment:

Monday, March 21, 2011

HB2093 Amendment to Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act is presently on the floor of the Illinois House for a vote. So, who could argue with a bill requiring sex abuse reporting? Well, Planned Parenthood would .. because they care so much about your children .. they are actually lobbying against HB2093.

Note - Planned Parenthood's (PP) non-medically licensed staff can currently choose to legally ignore child sexual abuse ... and fully support their ability to do so!

In the wake of the very controversial undercover videos, which exposed the failure of PP employees to report child abuse and sex-trafficking, PP has sent a form petition to Illinois state senators, urging them to vote "No" on HB2093! Did I hear that right? Vote No on a bill which will broaden the duty to report sex abuse of minors? Vote No, on a bill which would ensure further protection for minor girls from sex abuse and sex-trafficking? Do we have that right? Planned Parenthood is against such a bill? Yes, your eyes do not deceive you. PP is lobbying against HB2093, which would protect your children from these types of abuses and exploitations by predators and more.

Hello out there! The pirate's flag is fully unfurled, and does anyone out there see who these people are? This is getting to the point of utter lunacy! Remember the childhood fable of "The Emperor's New Clothes", in which a very vain emperor was tricked by his tailor, into believing he had the most beautiful new garment, when in reality the emperor was naked as the day he was born! As he parades through the streets, flaunting his nakedness before his subjects, which he believes to be his new royal threads - no one has the courage to admit the obvious - that the emperor is, in fact, in his birthday suit! No one that is except for one little lad .. who finally blows the whistle crying out the obvious - "The Emperor is Naked" How much more does PP's naked aggression have to be exposed before people wake up to the reality of who they really are? Or at least, have the courage to open their mouths and speak out against PP's naked malevolence.

Even NARAL withdrew their opposition to HB2093, thanks to negative feedback. But good ol PP remains staunch in their birthday suit, on the floor of the House. Who will notice? Who will call it what it is? How will the vote go? Are you watching? Where is that little lad from the Emperor's time? Ooooops! He was probably aborted.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Recently in New York, a pharmacist was convicted of first-degree murder of an unborn child, aggravated assault of an unborn child, aggravated assault and various other charges, when he apparently slipped his girlfriend an abortifacient drug, without her consent. Slipping misoprostol pills into her drink, and even internally during an intimate encounter, the pills then caused the woman to have a miscarriage and her baby died.

Marie Smith, Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues stated, "The criminal conviction and sentencing of this pharmacist for forced abortion is welcome news and should send a strong signal that coerced abortion will not be tolerated. Misoprostol is a powerful drug that is open to misuse and abuse," she said. One wonders how many other women have been the victims of this? When we consider that there are drugs out there, such as Ecstasy, which can easily be slipped into a woman's drink at the local bar; should we be surprised that an abortifacient drug can just as easily be slipped to a woman.

But of course, the murder charges which were levied against this man, and rightfully so, are nevertheless a schizophrenic aspect of the abortion issue, where a woman can kill her unborn child, legally by "choice"; while anyone else who may cause the death of her child, either through an act of violence, or in the sneaky manner which this pharmacist used, is considered a murderer. Again, the double standard here makes little sense to those of us who reverence life.

We know that when a woman wants it - it's a child ... and when she doesn't - it's a fetus, a product of pregnancy, a choice. Conversely, when a man wants it, it's none of his business - and if he slips her an abortifacient drug in her drink, he's a murderer. It's a schizophrenic society that calls one person a murderer, while the other is simply exercising her prerogative of choice. Whatever happened to the old saying, "whats sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose"?

Either way, women better think twice before taking a drink from a man, after she has had intimacies with him. If she wants to have so much autonomy over her body, she should remember that sexual relations, in and of them self, involve momentarily relinquishing part of that autonomy to another. And men should remember, that as it stands right now, legally, they have no choice - one way or the other - regarding whatever issues from their union with a woman. Perhaps men themselves should start being more aware of what is theirs, before giving it away so easily through an act of pleasure, to someone else who will have total autonomy over it.

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Baby Joseph is a 13-month old infant in London, Ontario, Canada, who suffers from an incurable neurological disease that will result in his eventual death. London's Victoria hospital, where Joseph has been a patient since October, originally planned to remove life support from the baby over the objections of his parents. The hospital asked the Office of the Public Guardian to assume decision-making power. This situation is what has made national headlines.

There is no doubt that the outcome of this case will have worldwide consequences in the areas of euthanasia, parental rights and national health care.

Baby Joseph's parents understand that he has no chance of recovery, but have requested that the baby have a tracheostomy (a permanent tracheotomy) so that they can bring him home to die. Their daughter died from a similar disorder eight years ago; but in her case, the physicians performed a tracheostomy, and the family was able to take her home to die.

The case made news in the United States when Father Frank Pavone, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and the Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network came to the support of the parents. There is a debate over the cognitive function of the baby. The hospital has said he is not responsive. The parents claim that he responds to voice, touch and pain. In a recently released video, the baby is shown clearly responding to all three.

The debate centers around 2 issues.

The first: no hospital should be able to unilaterally impose an end of life-sustaining treatment based on financial concerns or a subjective quality of life.

The second issue is that of the tracheostomy. The family wants the procedure done in order to take the baby home to die. The hospital says this would impose a burden on the parents, and in their best medical judgment, they are refusing. The question here is, what is the burden? If it's the baby, then the treatment is being withheld because the baby is perceived as the burden.

Keep in mind that Gabriella Gifford, the Arizona Congresswoman who was shot in the head, received a tracheotomy almost immediately. Tracheotomies are performed for many reasons, but for long-term ventilatory support they are done for comfort. The question I would ask as a medical professional is, since the baby has been hospitalized since October, why wasn't the tracheostomy performed months earlier? This is standard procedure in hospitals.

There is a lot more to this case that is unfolding. As of today, the hospital is refusing to release the medical records.

So, which would you say is more important as a top priority news item - exposing illegal cover-ups of the trafficking of minors, by a New Jersey Planned Parenthood clinic - OR - the continuing coverage of the salacious debauchery and descent into madness of a top Hollywood celebrity?

The pro-life group, Live Action, released another of its undercover videos, exposing the reprehensible and illegal shenanigans of yet one more Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. The undercover video reveals an employee of a New Jersey Planned Parenthood clinic, advising a man posing as a pimp, on how to obtain abortions and birth control for his underage prostitutes. Fox and CNN News along with the New York Times, Washington Post and several other news agencies, reported on the story within 2 days of the release of this Live Action video.

ABC, CBS and NBC however, did not report on the Planned Parenthood expose until 8 days later; having much bigger fish to fry - said fish being Charlie Sheen and his scurrilous behavior - bringing to mind a popular tune by Don Henley, titled "Dirty Laundry" ... these are just some of the lyrics ..... I make my living off the evening news People love it when you lose, give me dirty laundry ... Dirty little secrets, dirty little lies, we love to cut you down to size ........ kick em when their up, kick em when their down ...

Well, it would seem, in the view of ABC, CBS & NBC, that that the reprehensible exploitation of young girls, takes a back seat to the more tantalizing escapades of a morally bankrupt Hollywood star. It's called pandering to the morbid curiosity of the voyeurs of this world. Who is the bigger drug addict - Charlie Sheen, or a public who is being fed by a media, which acts more like a drug pusher than a reputable reporting agency.

This also goes to prove, that the more famous you are, the less help you get. Charlie is yet another victim of, not only his own descent into immorality and drug abuse, but one who joins the ranks of those celebrities such as Brittany Spears and Linsey Lohan, who fill our baser appetite for dirty laundry and feeding off the misery of others. Were they ordinary everyday citizens, they would simply be hospitalized and or jailed, and get the treatment they need. And young girl who are being horrendously victimized and exploited with the help of Planned Parenthood, might get the attention and help they need as well.

Sunday, March 6, 2011

In my final blog on Abbey Johnson's book, "Unplanned", the theme of love and compassion, which ultimately helped Abbey Johnson come over to the pro-life side of the fence continues. Abbey's story is a riveting and heart-wrenching account of the journey of one woman's soul, snatched from the snares of the father of Lies, through the ever faithful prayers and vigilance of her loving husband and family, and pro-lifers who stood on the "other side" of the fence surrounding the abortion clinic, which she ran.

Planned Parenthood vilifies the pro-life movement, painting themselves and the women who come to their clinics, as victims of judgemental, fanatical zealots. Yet, through her 8 yrs. in the abortion clinic, which she eventually became director of, Abbey was continually faced with contradictory evidence against this pro-choice argument. Yes, there were the fanatics, the fringe element on the pro-life side - but as time went by, Abbey began to see that there were many more pro-lifers, who were simply humble, kind and compassionate souls, who seemed to care just as much about the women who walked through the abortion clinic doors, as Abbey herself did. Several of those pro-lifers, were people who befriended Abbey, and specifically prayed for her.

David Bereit, National Director of 40 Days for Life and Shawn Carney Director of the Coalition for Life, began working to change the face of their pro-life campaign, from one of a mixed group of varying personalities - some fanatic - some not - to one of complete peaceful prayer and faithful vigilance. They changed the attitude of their volunteers from waving placards, shouting insults and being obnoxious or confrontational - to simply being there at the abortion clinics, to stand and pray and bear witness - to love and befriend and pray for - not only the clients - but the abortion staff themselves - like Abbey Johnson.

Abbey herself states, among many other contributing factors of her conversion, how "for eight years - faces and voices walking the fence, gently calling out offers of help, friendship, rescue, and the love of God" brought her back. She said she appreciated the fence-prayers' approach and encourages churches and other organizations to consider their example.

Most of all, she experienced the stark contrast between those she had previously believed to be close friends on the pro-choice side, who shunned and betrayed her, once she left Planned Parenthood - to the people who prayed at the fence, who had befriended her, even though they did not believe in what she was doing. "Those people, she stated, "had modeled for me something far deeper, far stronger than 'situational friendship': they loved and accepted me even when I was doing something they found morally objectionable. They didn't just talk about love - they put flesh on the concept."

Heb. 6:10 "for God is not unjust, that He should forget your work and thelove that you have shown in His name." For all of us in the pro-life movement, who get discouraged that our efforts are in vain, Abbey's story is an amazing witness to the power of steadfast fidelity in prayer, trust in God - and the power of Love.

Friday, March 4, 2011

Today I will continue my comments on Abbey Johnson's book, "Unplanned", and the next very illuminating point which stands out in her account. In simply reading her first description of her own personality, and her introduction to Planned Parenthood, there is one major theme which keeps repeating itself throughout.

Abbey begins her story with a description of herself, as a compassionate and deeply sensitive person, who was, in her own words, "a magnet for people in crisis". The degree she had chosen to pursue, a Bachelor's in Psychology, was a natural choice for someone like Abbey, who truly cared for and wanted to help people. She then goes on to recount that fateful day, in which her sensitive heart and soul, came face to face with a Planned Parenthood representative who was looking to recruit volunteers - volunteers who would be interested in helping "women in crisis".

Here is where Abbey's story, once again, becomes very eye-opening. The phrases used by the Planned Parenthood representative that day, carry a continuous theme of compassion and caring for women in trouble. A theme which, for someone like Abbey, proved a very enticing worm on a hook. The Planned Parenthood representative tells Abbey, how Planned Parenthood was looking for volunteers, "who knew how to make women feel cared for - who were compassionate and good with people." Hmmmm. Who could argue with such sentiments?

I interrupt my story, for a moment here, to make a comparison. Reading the kind words of the Planned Parenthood representative, I was immediately reminded of 2 kinds of personalities. Michael Corleone, from the "Godfather movie". came to mind first. A famous line from that movie has always struck and stayed with me, from which I learned much about the art of deception. That was the chilling line, which Michael Corleone speaks to one of his fellow mafioso, saying, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." These words still send a chill down my spine to this day; and Abbey's description of the Planned Parenthood representative's warmth and compassion, brought Michael Corleone's words back to mind. Mother Theresa was the 2nd personality, who came to my mind, but I will recount why, a bit later.

To go on with Abbey's account of the day she signed up to be a volunteer for Planned Parenthood (PP), Abbey continues with her descriptions of the PP representative, with phrases like - "she was easy to talk to" - " I could sense her sincerity and how much she cared about women" - "her compassion really captured me - "she was poised and well-spoken, while still really friendly" - "I felt like I had a new friend." Abbey signed up to become a volunteer that very day. And her journey into a world of making "wrong choices for right reasons" had just begun.

As pro-life volunteers and crusaders, how often to we examine our motives, and our methods? Are we truly compassionate, caring, kind and understanding and easy to talk to? Would these accolades, which Abbey ascribed to the Planned Parenthood representative, truly apply to us? Abbey's motives are quite clear from the very beginning of her story. She cared about people. We on the pro-life side, many times assume, that the "other side" are insensitive ideologues. But, Abbey's story tells of a completely different type of personality, whom Planned Parenthood is ready and able to seduce. Planned Parenthood offers the sensitive, compassionate soul a vehicle, a cause, a place to give of their compassionate heart. Do we in the pro-life movement "effectively" do the same?

There is much news these days about a certain Baptist Church, which is demonstrating and protesting against homosexuality, at the funerals of young soldiers who were killed in battle. And though the courts have upheld this church's right to do so, I would suspect, that there are very few who sympathize with this church's methods - and rightfully so. For what does Christ say about the woman caught in adultery? And what approach did Mother Theresa of Calcutta use to treat the poor and suffering of India? Mother Theresa was a Catholic Christian. Those she treated, were as far from Christianity as one could be. Hinduism, though it may have some laudable aspects, is nevertheless, in the eyes of Christianity, a pagan ideology based on pantheism etc. Yet, there was Mother Theresa, not using an overbearing hand, but a gentle one. With true love and compassion, she cared for people, even though they believed in a completely different ideology from that of her own. Mother Theresa was not about - my religion is right, your religion is wrong - she was simply about following the teachings of Christ, in what he told us about doing to the least of His brethren.

Michael Corleone kept his friends close in order to deceive and destroy them. Mother Theresa held close, those who were suffering, in order to be Christ to them. What were the motives, that day, of the Planned Parenthood representative, who used kindness and compassion to seduce the kind heart of Abbey? Was she being another Michael Corleone? We may never know. And we can no more judge her, than we can Abbey. Perhaps she too had been seduced by a lie, due to her own sensitive heart.

My point here is, how truly sensitive are our hearts to those who are suffering? In our desperation to save babies, do we really see the suffering of the mothers, as well as people like Abby Johnson believe she did? Are we about caring for people - or are we about a cause? In our enthusiasm to save babies, do we sometimes err on the side of that Baptist Church, which is fighting a wrong, with a wrong method? Satan loves to capitalize on our mistakes. Many on the pro-choice side, see themselves as the caring ones, while viewing us on the pro-life side, as self-righteous, judgmental and uncaring. That is how the Planned Parenthood representative that day, was able to paint pro-lifers to Abbey Johnson.

One of my favorite statements is "we must put on the armor of God" This is especially true when we are fighting a great evil such as abortion. We must not let our own Achilles heel give the high ground to the enemy. And we must truly identify that enemy. Is it the Abbey Johnsons of this world? Or is it sometimes, our own selves? Abbey Johnson's story is about people like herself, who make wrong choices for right reasons. But there are also those of us, who make right choices - for wrong reasons. And just because someone's cause is right, does not mean that they are right. Let us truly examine our own hearts. Stay tuned for more on this subject ...

Thursday, March 3, 2011

A very dear pro-life friend of mine, recently gave me as a gift, Abbey Johnson's book, "Unplanned". She even inscribed the inside cover for me, stating that I am a true friend and a true defender of life. I was deeply touched and forever grateful to her, whom I also consider to be a true friend, and a great champion in the cause of the defense of life.

Previously I have only written anonymously for Lake County Right to Life's Blog. Today, I will write my first public blog, on Abbey Johnson's Introduction Note to her book,"Unplanned". As one who has always admired few words which speak volumes, let me say, that Abbey's introduction note does precisely that. It speaks volumes! In that light, I will try to keep my words as brief as I can, which I also hope will speak volumes.

I feel as though Abbey took the words right out of my mouth, with what she wrote in her note. She expressed sentiments, which I myself have long felt, but never fully expressed for fear of how my words might be taken, by my fellow pro-lifers. Her brief note brings to light a very eye-opening and pertinent point regarding this pro-life vs pro-choice battle. That being, the lens which both sides of the aisle in the abortion debate use, to view the opposing side. Human nature, being what it is, is always quick to vilify an opponent in any debate or controversy. And one must admit, there has been no lack of vilification on either side of the aisle, in the abortion debate. I feel Abbey hits the nail on the head with her description of this conundrum.

Unlike Abbey Johnson, I have always been pro-life. So this is not about any conversion story on my part here. But, where Abbey and I agree, and where our experience becomes a shared one, rather than a polarizing one, is in the idea of how all people on the side of any argument immediately take the high ground. This holds true in the pro-life vs pro-choice debate as well. For in the pro-life movement, I have often seen, even in minuscule ways, the instinct to see all pro-choicers as simply being immoral cold blooded people, who simply want a world where they can have total license to pursue their immoral activities with no consequences. And that they see innocent unborn babies, as simply an unfortunate byproduct of their iniquitous behavior, which needs be gotten out of the way, in order to continue said iniquitous behavior. We have, unfortunately far too often, only seen the treacherous and deceptive element to the pro-choice movement. And all too often, have only seen altruism on our side of the fence.

To be sure, there is and has been, much proof of deception and even immoral behavior and unbridled profiteering on the pro-choice side. I do not attempt to refute that here, nor does Abbey. But only God can judge a heart. And in my own life's experience, I have learned that unlike movie depictions, most people are never really all evil or all good. And even someone who might be on a wrong side, just might be there for what they sincerely believe, are altruistic reasons - believing just as strongly, that they are on the right side, as their opponent strongly believes them to be on the wrong side. And Abbey herself very articulately points this out in her brief introduction note to her story. She states that she has been asked many times,"Were you and your pro-choice coworkers really driven by compassion and tenderness; by motives of truly helping women and making the world a better place?" To this question, Abbey answers "Yes". She goes on to comment, she often finds that people don't like that answer. Hmmmmm. Do we like that answer? Do we believe that answer?

Can a pro-life person, especially those of us, who have doggedly worked and sacrificed for the defense of life, truly comprehend, that a pro-choice opponent has also doggedly worked and even sacrificed ... for perhaps just as sincere of motives? Whoah! Abbey goes on to invite pro-lifers not to shut the book first of all - instead - to continue reading and try to understand the surprising hope and motivations of the "other side". She contends that the reader will be pleasantly surprised to find that they have more in common with the "other side" than they might ever have imagined.

I am a woman, wife, mother, grandmother and pro-life advocate and volunteer. I also have my own personal experiences, as a woman, - and without going into personal detail - they are experiences, which have given me my own personal peek into the mind-set of the "other side." I strongly suspect, that there are many of us pro-life women, who could say the same. Over the past 38 yrs. I have watched my side crusade devotedly and fanatically, in the cause of the unborn and the defense of life - and rightfully so. Make no mistake - our cause is just. Not simply because it is our own opinion, but because we know it is God's opinion - that He is the Creator - and as such, all life belongs to Him. But perhaps in our dogged devotion, we have not always seen our opponent in the clearest possible light. Or have we pushed to the back of our minds, those shared personal experiences, which might lend empathy to our opponent's side?

There is a problem here. Women are suffering. The poor are suffering. Unwanted and or perhaps handicapped children are suffering. Suffering is all around us in many forms. And there are two sides, on polar opposites, who staunchly believe they have the answer to these problems. Each side has vehemently defended their position over the past 38 yrs., since Roe v Wade. So why has the pro-life movement failed to win our argument over the past 38 yrs., since this infamous decision? Could it be, that we have never really completely understood, or even, dare I say, "empathized" with our opponents on the pro-choice side? Have we only seen the abortionist who has profited by butchering women and their babies? Have we only seen Hitler & Margaret Sanger Clones, when we look at a pro-choice opponent? Abbey invites us to look more closely, in her book "Unplanned". And I too, may very well have more to say on this subject, so stay tuned - and read her book.

HB 1886 amends the school code that dissolves all school districts (except in Chicago) and combines them into one county district -- check it out at this link.Synopsis As IntroducedAmends the School Code. Provides that within 60 days after the effective date of the amendatory Act, on a date set by the State Board of Education, a special election must be held in each county to elect members to a county school board. Provides that on July 1, 2012, (i) all school districts in this State in existence on June 30, 2012 (other than the Chicago school district) are dissolved; (ii) their school boards are abolished; (iii) the terms of all board members end; and (iv) all of the powers, duties, assets, liabilities, employees, contracts, property, records, pending business, and unexpended funds of each school board are transferred to the appropriate county school board or boards. Provides that on July 1, 2012, each county shall constitute one school district to be governed by a county school board, unless the county school board has divided the county into 2 or more school districts, in which case each of those school districts shall be governed by a school board elected as provided under the Code, and the county school board shall be dissolved upon those school board members taking office. Effective immediately.

Please call your representative and urge them to vote No in committee, vote No on sponsorship, and No if it comes out of committee to the floor.

Watch this video, and decide for yourself, whether or not you want to risk your child's or your own health, with this extremely dangerous vaccine. A public advocacy group reports, that the death toll from the Gardasil vaccine has now reached 47, since the it's approval in 2006. Although this was a fast-tracked approval, done without adequate testing. Gardasil is a series of three shots given to supposedly protect against the spread of the human papillomavirus (HPV).

This is a behavioral vaccine, intended to prevent the consequences of risky sexual behavior. But people don't get a penicillin injection until they actually contract a venereal disease. And penicillin is far less dangerous than Gardasil. So why are we risking the health of our children with a behavioral vaccine? And why are doctors continuing to prescribe it? Is your doctor fully advising you of the risks, as opposed to the supposed benefits? Watch the video.